Yes, It’s Pro-Israel Money.
Hello everyone! If you’re reading this, then you know I’ve written on my website that I’m the only candidate who has never taken money routed through Pro-Israel PACs. That implies, of course, that the incumbent has, and that’s true - she has. That’s a fact. The PAC she took money from literally describes itself as pro-Israel. It aims to shape U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine. It is their words. She recently returned the money after pressure from local activists and perhaps my call-out, but she did originally take it, and she still holds the PAC’s endorsement. Simon is also endorsed by Elect Democratic Women, whose super PAC took $1 million from AIPAC’s super PAC this year. However, there are disputes that this is pedantic, that details are missing and context would change the assessment. I argue that the expanded context people want to point to, still falls short of the broadest context which makes my conclusion the same. So let’s unpack this.
First, the PAC isn’t AIPAC. It’s J Street, which TrackAIPAC itself lists among Pro-Israel PACs. But J Street opposes annexation and settlement expansion and advocates for peace. That’s why it’s often called “dovish,” and why some Palestinian advocates tolerate it. Its supporters see it as a way for Jewish Americans to route money to candidates who take more progressive stances on Israel. But many other Palestinian advocates object to any member of Congress taking its money and endorsements, and so do I. Why? First, it is an outright conflict of interest to take money that aims to shape American’s foreign policy in my view. Second, because as long as politics are a team sport, we can’t look at PAC funding, votes or legislation in isolation. In this article, I’ll explain why I see Simon’s acceptance of Pro-Israel PAC money as a betrayal, and why the money itself matters less than her loyalty to a Democratic establishment that ultimately serves AIPAC’s agenda (even as AIPAC is taking a step back). My argument is that the PACs that sustain that establishment, directly or indirectly, also sustain the broader Pro-Israel lobby. Here’s how.
Before we begin: yes, I support Israel’s right to exist, and yes, people’s political voices matter regardless of their faith or their views on Israel. I also believe that statements from high-ranking Israeli officials show intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza, and that this, together with the death and destruction, constitutes genocide. Genocide is not defined by a death toll; under the 1948 Genocide Convention, it’s defined by acts committed with intent to destroy a group, in whole or in part. What’s different now is that we can watch that intent and those acts unfold in near-real time, instead of recognizing them in hindsight. So that’s why people feel as though the definition of genocide has changed - because of the death toll in Gaza compared to past genocides which went on for too long before the broader public noticed. Some people would argue this is a changed definition, but I would argue that it’s good that we don’t define genocide by a large percentage of deaths - because we shouldn’t tolerate egregious amounts of civilian death in the first place. People also argue that the definition of being be pro-Israel or Zionist has changed, but I’m not here to settle that. I’m using the explicit words the PACs use to describe themselves, and I’m here to talk about the broader political game - where those definitions matter less than the outcome: more military aid flowing to Israel as it wages destruction in Gaza and the West Bank - which is what we’re seeing, and what I expect we’ll keep seeing.
So here are the facts of the matter, which together build out the argument:
Lateefah Simon is an establishment Democrat, full stop. First, it’s important to accept that Rep. Simon is an establishment democrat. The establishment picked her. She has known Kamala Harris since the 90s, who mentored her. Former Congresswoman Barbara Lee once stated she essentially selected Lateefah Simon to “run next.” And Rep. Simon even once proudly boasted that Hakeem Jeffries “pulled her aside” and said the party had “bigger plans” for her, which was the reason why she didn’t fulfill her promise to voters to run for President of the Democratic freshman class. So Lateefah Simon is not the grassroots radical that she may present as. She actually used to claim her campaign would be grassroots and not take corporate PAC money, but that changed in a single term and she has pocketed five figures of corporate money this election. Rep. Lateefah Simon is the establishment pick. She’s been coached for this. She has the backing of the establishment and now she’s also literally a corporate Democrat (pedantically because she takes corporate money). And because of all of this help, she owes her career to the powerful players. That matters because -
Establishment Democrats (and Republicans) are both flooded with AIPAC. Lateefah Simon being an establishment pick matters because she’s on their Democratic team, and that team is flooded with AIPAC money (as are the Republicans). Since AIPAC launched its PAC in 2021, Hakeem Jeffries (who Simon voted for as House Speaker in 2025) has received more than $1 million through it, mostly through earmarked contributions from individual donors. Over his career, pro-Israel PACs have sent him roughly $1.5 million in total, ranking him 14th of 439 House members. AIPAC funds more Republicans directly, but concentrates its super PAC money on deciding which Democrats win primaries. In 2024, AIPAC put money into more than 80% of the 469 congressional races on the ballot. Its PAC backed 233 Republicans with more than $17 million and 152 Democrats with more than $28 million, and sent more than $3 million to party committees on both sides, from the National Republican Senatorial Committee to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Jeffries Majority Fund. AIPAC has also endorsed the entire House Democratic leadership. This includes Hakeem Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar - all of whom have taken AIPAC-affiliated trips to Israel. And with AIPAC now ending its endorsements and earmarks while keeping its super PAC, its members’ money, more than $90 million to candidates this cycle, can keep flowing, just without AIPAC’s name on the filings so it can lay low. But what does that have to do with JStreet?
AIPAC is out, and Jstreet is Filling in the Establishment Gaps: AIPAC and J Street have not always seen eye to eye on policy or candidates, which defenders of J Street are quick to point out - but sometimes these two PACs do see eye to eye, especially when it comes to supporting the broader party establishment - which overall, is ultimately a Pro-Israel entity. More specifically, JStreet has long defaulted to endorsing sitting members of Congress over challengers, therefore keeping the same candidates in office. Now that AIPAC is falling out of favor politically, J Street is starting to endorse the very same candidates that AIPAC did - including Hakeem Jeffries.
As of March, JStreetPAC was backing 133 House and Senate incumbents. In 2024, 95% of the incumbents JStreetPAC endorsed won re-election. Backing incumbents is simply their safe bet. And as AIPAC’s backing has become a growing political liability in Democratic primaries, Jstreet is filling in the gap. In September 2025, Hakeem Jeffries accepted J Street’s endorsement for the first time. Which means that JStreet has now also endorsed the entire House Democratic leadership, the same leadership that AIPAC backed in the past: Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar. J Street was proud of this. Its endorsees now make up 60% of Democrats in the House and Senate.
And the money follows the endorsements because JStreetPAC is a conduit: when you donate through its website, your money passes through to the candidate in your name, tagged as coming via JStreetPAC. The FEC counts these as individual contributions, not PAC money. In 2024, JStreetPAC’s donors sent $8,128,218 to House and Senate candidates and $6,075,770 to the Harris-Walz campaign. Jeffries himself has received $16,350 through J Street’s PAC. But J Street doesn’t need to outspend AIPAC to matter, it is just interestingly keeping the same overall establishment team in the same place. JStreetPAC is the up and coming PAC and calls endorsing every member of leadership “a powerful testament to our mainstream position within the Democratic Party.” This argument is meant to signal that Democratic position is changing on Israel policy, but so far - it doesn’t really seem to have.
The Overall Democratic Establishment Had a Chance to Signal a Change in Israeli Policy, but Didn’t
For example, in July, the House voted on Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment barring any funds in the State Department spending bill from being spent “for Israel” and cutting the $3.3 billion in annual military financing Israel receives. It was members’ first chance this Congress to vote directly on aid to Israel. It failed 104 to 314, with Democrats split 103 yes, 98 no (and 10 abstained).Hakeem Jeffries, J Street and AIPAC all opposed it, and Jeffries and J Street referred to each other directly for validation. Jeffries’ letter to colleagues said he’d vote ‘no’ to the amendment which was consistent with the position of “pro-peace organizations like J Street,” and he also said he wasn’t going to “whip the vote” - or essentially tell Democrats how to vote as a group directly. The same day, J Street backed his decision to oppose the amendment. J Street even strangely trivialized the vote by calling it a “procedural vote.” But it wasn’t. It was the one direct vote on aid to Israel that members were going to get.
The stated reason for opposing it was that the amendment was overly broad, with warnings that it would limit humanitarian aid, refugee resettlement and peace-building. But the text never mentions Gaza, Palestinians or humanitarian relief, and I found no independent analysis showing it would have cut aid to Palestinians. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver even noted that the Republican bill provided no aid for Gaza to begin with.
Jeffries wrote that there were more decisive ways to change course on the far-right Netanyahu government…you know, later, somehow. He said Israel can pay for its own weapons (which given the debt-to-GDP ratio, that seems rue), but after the standing agreement to pay out $3.3 billion to Israel each year expires. He said this would happen soon anyway - but he offered no plan or timeline on this. Interestingly, weeks earlier, AIPAC’s PAC had sent $149,300 in earmarked donations to his joint fundraising committee, the largest earmark in its history.
Now let’s be clear, this amendment was doomed. All but one Republican voted no to make the amendment to the bill, and the Senate would likely never pass it. However, 74% of potential Democratic voters oppose more support for Israel, so why not make a statement and vote together? Leaving the vote “unwhipped” lets every Democrat take whatever position was safest for their district or conscience, while the outcome stayed exactly the same. For example, Simon voted for the amendment and so did Whip Katherine Clark and Nancy Pelosi. But not whipping the vote is not a party signaling change, that’s a party protecting its seats. If you haven’t heard of “whipping” the vote, it may surprise you that the leadership can strongly suggest how a party votes. Some of you won’t be surprised. Party coordination makes sense. However, not everyone I’ve spoken to understand the full range of costs.
The Game is Rigged, and Lateefah is A Part of That Game: The Massie vote is one example of a bigger pattern. Politics is a team sport, and “whipping the vote” is how the captain rallies the team: leadership counts votes and tells members how the party wants them to vote. A ‘whip’ isn’t binding, but it isn’t toothless either. Leadership has a heavy hand in allocating committee assignments. Committee seats are political currency. They come with hearings, press coverage and viral clips of members grilling witnesses and giving speeches. That looks like fighting to voters, and voters re-elect fighters. So members have every reason and incentive to stay on leadership’s good side, even when they occasionally vote against it.
But votes are gamed out and party leaders don’t spend votes they don’t need. Political scientists David King and Richard Zeckhauser studied every Congressional Quarterly key vote from 1975 to 1998. They found that leaders collect “if you need me” pledges and call them in only when those votes will produce a win. When the 2009 House health care bill passed 220 to 215, Talking Points Memo reported that Pelosi probably could have forced a wider victory but freed vulnerable members to vote against it for political reasons. Members get to vote with their districts, as long as the math still works out for the party.
Then there is the “rotating villain” concept. Massie brought up the concept in a floor speech about a different subject (not the Israel arms vote). It’s when a representative votes against the party under the direction of the party, even if it makes them a villain. This is done to make sure a certain, unpopular outcome occurs. When the math gets tight on a vote, someone takes a turn as the “villain” and casts the unpopular vote so the party’s actual preferred outcome holds while everyone else looks like a hero by looking like they voted for the public’s interest. Massie went so far as to suggest that Republican and Democratic leadership actually work this out together, to ensure the math across the aisle shakes out the way the parties - and not the people - actually want it to. Perhaps that’s why many of us have the collective, felt sense that nothing meaningful really happens in government. Party leadership is who decides what bills hit the floor and what gets enough votes. And again - the leadership of both parties being funded by AIPAC.
But not every congressional member can be a villain. Lateefah Simon’s district is a tough, principled one, even though its a safe democratic seat. She will and can vote with the district, otherwise people will take notice. Barbara Lee set a precedent here, so she won’t be able to play the villain. That’s lucky for her, because I do believe that Rep. Simon cares about Gazans. It’s nice that she will be able to vote with her conscience. But the votes that shape her career aren’t the high-profile legislative ones. She was appointed deputy whip for policy when she took office, called an “unusually high perch.” Again, she has posted on her own site that Jeffries pulled her aside and told her the party had bigger plans for her. When she refers to Democrats, she doesn’t say “they,” she uses the word “we.” To me, all of that is not a good sign. And at two town halls this year, in Berkeley and Emeryville, she wouldn’t say whether she’d back Jeffries for Speaker again, she evaded by saying that he simply “has the votes.” She took no opportunity to comment further and assuage concerns citizens that she would not continue to prop up the establishment.
But again, she did vote for him in 2025, and she’s talked about angling towards better committee seats if she gets re-elected. She may be in the unique position of being permitted to look like a chronic hero because she can’t play the villain in this district, but in exchange, I predict she probably won’t cause much other trouble for the party, neither. I doubt she will publicly criticize Hakeem Jeffries in an way that’s meaningful nor do I think she will coordinate her own voting bloc to rally for an insurgency - which in my Just 12 Strategy I argue that we need. Because action like that actually costs something.
Instead, a member who stays on leadership’s good side gets the cushy assignments and the glamorous visibility. That person gets job security. Sure, she can introduce and cosponsor bills as gestures which die in committee, like the ones she’s backed on Gaza. That looks good to voters, too. But if Democrats win the House, it will be Speaker Hakeem Jeffries who decides whether any of them get a vote.
So maybe now you see the game. If a representative can’t climb to the top, the next best thing is a good committee assignment, like Appropriations. From there, she plays to her district, which sometimes means valuable things, like bringing money home (even though she seems to have grossly overstated the money she’s already brought). And plenty of districts accept that bargain, knowingly or not: they trade the integrity of the legislative process for dollars (like everyone else seems to do), because they know the game is rigged and one person can’t change that. That’s their choice. But they shouldn’t pretend it’s principled, and they shouldn’t give me grief for calling it out - because some of us would never sacrifice integrity for dollars. And that is why I call out Simon for taking corporate PAC money and for having previously taken money passed through Pro-Israel PACs, which she only returned due to voter pressure.
But Don’t Her Votes Suggest She’s Not Establishment? People may also argue: well, what about her votes and co-sponsorships? She has voted against the wrong bills and co-sponsored the right ones, right? Her cosponsorships, floor votes on defense spending, and public rhetoric place her among the most vocal critics of U.S. military support for Israel's Gaza campaign in the House, some would say. That may be true, but it is easy to talk about issues and noticeable when she does not oppose leadership. ‘Introducing’ a bill entails dropping it into a literal box and then getting to do a press release. Advocacy is work, absolutely. Votes cost time. But these are also easy actions that quickly score points and do not change the game.
In Conclusion
When I write that Lateefah Simon took money passed through Pro-Israel PACs (though she later refunded the J Street money), it’s because she did. That’s a fact. J Street describes itself as pro-Israel and Zionist, and it exists to influence American policy toward Israel. We could have just stopped there. But some folks object to that because J Street argues for the right things, like peace, democracy and seemingly even conflicting with AIPAC, so it’s claimed that it’s unfair to label it with the description that it gave to itself - as if that takes it out of context. But I argue there’s a broader context that’s also being ignored if analysis stops there. Because J Street is part of a Pro-Israel network of influence that preserves the Pro-Israel lobby establishment. It’s picking up where AIPAC left off and it largely default-endorses incumbents who play by party rules. That party was originally propped up by AIPAC. Those rules dictate the legislation that gets passed and who gets to sit in seats. That leadership decides when the party votes together, doesn’t need to coordinate, or even takes the fall. Yes, even on the Democratic party side, it is a party that AIPAC has funded, endorsed, and help rise in leadership. These parties can whip members’ votes and hands out the committee assignments that help representatives keep their seats as long as they keep supporting the party. It’s a vicious cycle of influence and both AIPAC and J Street fund it at the top. J Street is the dovish side to the Pro-Israel lobby, which gives a progressives a feel-good route to give money and support to the exact same people AIPAC once did. It just feels better, but so far - the outcomes haven’t changed much. So the question is - does this district have the principles to recognize the game and vote out the people who are willing to play it?